|
Post by darrellmyskiw on Mar 17, 2004 12:22:49 GMT -6
let's see how this goes .... Red River Floodway Act - introduced last week. Under it, Manitobans whose properties are temporarily washed out by the Red River Floodway would lose the right to sue the government under a compensation system proposed by the province. If claimants were unhappy with the amount they were awarded, they would be able to take their case to a disaster assistance appeal board -- a group appointed by the province. _______ Oh yeah - and no right to appeal the boards decision. _______ now how's that for a un-by-arsed decision ? People loose businesses, farms, homes, lifestyles .... Honestly now - do you think the flooded people will get full compensation / recovery packages ? Proves that Do-Not Doer gov'mt does-not want responsibility and does-not care about anyone outside of Winnipeg.
|
|
Robert Burton
Fly Fishing Zombie
Eventually all things merge into one, and a river runs through it.
Posts: 4,744
|
Post by Robert Burton on Mar 17, 2004 13:09:12 GMT -6
Aren't floods natural and covered by insurance??
|
|
|
Post by darrellmyskiw on Mar 17, 2004 13:52:37 GMT -6
I haven't found that answer. Q's to a couple insurance firms haven't responded yet.
|
|
Robert Burton
Fly Fishing Zombie
Eventually all things merge into one, and a river runs through it.
Posts: 4,744
|
Post by Robert Burton on Mar 17, 2004 15:39:03 GMT -6
I "heard" after the last flood you couldn't get insurance or that you couldn't unless you built a dike around ¾ of your property (then you only had to sand bag the rest) and it was not just those on the river but those on a declared flood plain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 23:58:44 GMT -6
When we built our house in 1991, we built it ABOVE the required "flood-proof" height, and in 1997 there was 4 feet of water all around the house??? And they aren't going to go out of their way to help us out? Especially since we are being sacrificed to keep the city dry...? I heard from a Water Engineer at the the UofM that it is illegal to put one group at risk in order to save another group? not sure if this is realistically applicable to this property situation?
Aaron Wiebe
|
|
|
Post by renegadescud on Mar 18, 2004 13:00:17 GMT -6
During the Flood of '97, which of course was unprecidented, several people lost their homes. This is so unfortunate, however, (and this may offend some and I apologize to those) when chosing a home in an area in which flooding has occured for years, you must be accountable for that decision and risk associated. By the way the cost sharing for Disaster Financial Assistance is 90% - 10% cost sharing with the Federal Government. Feds = 90%, so provinical government may not have enough control.
As with most insurance situations, decisions are made based on those individuals who chose to abuse the system, resulting in higher premiums. So many home owners did everything in their power to protect their homes and belongings, while others chose to let everything go with the expectation that the government (ultimately - tax payers) would replace everything they lost with brand new homes and items. It is those who chose to do nothing that result in the "good people" paying the price.
I agree with Aaron's statement about putting one group ahead of another, it is not something that should be done under any circumstance. Consider this, if Grande Point was flooded intentionally to protect Winnipeg and they lost approximately 100 homes and what that cost has been to taxpayers. Imagine if 50,000 homes in Winnipeg had been damaged. What would that have cost the taxpayers??
It's a tough issue with no obvious easy solution.
R-Scud...
|
|